I'm Already Against the Next War
No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt. Even they didn't say that. The only questions were 1) Were they less corrupt than the Republicans and 2) Did they combine at least a modicum of compassion and interest in the public good with their corruption? Back in the 90s, I felt that, on balance, Bill Clinton was openly compassionate, and that his corruption did not fatally taint his administration. At any rate, he did not GLORY in corruption as Reagan and Bush 1 and their advisors did. I also felt that after the Reagan Revolution (excuse me, I meant to say Reagan Devolution), triangulation was the only way to get anything done, and so they did it.
But Hillary Clinton seems to have learned the wrong lesson from her Senatorial success. The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles. As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the last week, Clinton has put herself on McCain's ticket, attacking the change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver (whether or not he can remains an open question), and promising more more more of the same of what we have had for the last thirty years. More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience". What we see in her campaign is that we will get the same old same old with an added measure of chaos.
Clinton, of course, is not Cheney. Dick Cheney is the mad master of corruption, a person who literally doesn't know what integrity is. But Hillary is too smart not to know, and she has made up her mind to shelve her integrity for the sake of ambition. And let me be clear what I mean by corruption -- I have no idea what her financial gains have been over the years, and I don't care. What I mean by corruption is any and all support of the criminal policies of the Republicans while calling herself a Democrat, in order to gain power.
Some weeks ago, I wrote a Huff post about a remark Bill Clinton made, that if Hillary became the nominee, the presidential campaign would be exceptionally "polite". We now see that he wasn't joking. Both Clintons are in favor of the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. They are surrounded by advisors who both literally and figuratively are married to the Republicans. They are, indeed, now part of the "vast right wing conspiracy".
One of the key questions about the Democrats since the 2006 elections is, where do their loyalties really lie? Time and again they have failed to stop the Republicans, or settled for a little populist embroidery around the edges of policies that by and large serve to increase the power of the Republicans. Their excuse, which is growing thin, is that they don't have the power to confront Bush. Hillary Clinton is now showing their real agenda -- preserving the status quo at the expense of the military, the taxpayers, the economy, world peace, and the rule of law.
Obama is not a known quantity. I have seen him one time and listened to one speech, and I was reasonably impressed by that speech. But Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. If you like the world that the Bushes and Clintons have made in the last twenty years, then you should by all means vote for her. But as of this week, I don't see her as the person I want answering the red phone.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Do you really think that anyone could be elected who did not to some extent go along with the existing power structure? Hillary seems smart enough to play their game while initiating the changes she wants. I believe her when she says that she wants change -- health care, NAFTA, etc. I also admire Obama, of course, and would vote for either of them.
Hilary Clinton won't change a damned thing!!!
Ms. Smiley has just given us the most elucidating commentary on the Clintons and their campaign that I have seen from an HP blogger, to date. It is a concise, insightful and remarkably accurate portrayal of their motivations and character (more correctly, the lack thereof) .
Depite her lies to the contrary, Hillary clearly voted to authorize Bush and Cheney to start a war in Iraq, without giving the slightest consideration to the long term consequences to the Iraqi people, the American people, and the world. It was irresponsible in the extreme. The fact that so many others voted as did she does not make it less so. Remember that she constantly tells us she's the one best qualified to make such important decisions. How could one so brilliant, so experienced and so capable as Hillary make such an unbelievably stupid and disastrous call?
Despite her lies to the contrary, when Hillary voted for the Kyl/Lieberman resolution declaring Iran's military forces to be terrorists, she voted to legitimize the military confrontation with Iraq then (and probably now) contemplated by Bush and Cheney. The sole purpose of that resolution was to give an official, Senate approval to a Bush/Cheney war with Iran. One as brilliant, and as qualified to be Commander-in Chief , as Hillary would certainly know this. For more reasons than we can discuss here, it was infinitely more irresponsible for Clinton to vote for that resolution than her vote for war in Iraq. It was also unforgivable, and it disqualifies her as the leader of the American people.
It is clear that a vote for McCain is a vote for a warmonger - a quick tempered, short fused, unstable warmonger at the very least, bordering, on the fanatical, when it comes to the war in Iraq and a potential war with Iran. Remember his theme song - Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran. That memorable performance was the quintessential "Freudian slip" - a brief but deadly accurate opportunity to know the psyche of Ol' Hundred Years War John. Folks, this guy's a nutcase and he has the very real potential of destroying the world.
Clinton is more subtle, but that same potential for war - never ending war - and worse, is there. As Ms. Smiley correctly notes, with every Bush/Cheney effort to get the nation embroiled is a war, Hillary has been one of their "go to" Democrats. She has supported Bush/Cheney whenever they wanted to commit the country to combat in that part of the world. A vote for Clinton is a vote for never ending hosilities, as well as the associated death, incredible monetary expense, and other terrible costs.
Clinton ( in fact, both of them) will say and do anything to get back to the White House. Their latest tactic is to suggest that a Clinton/Obama ticket ( with Hillary on top, of course) would be an unbeatable combination in November. Now think about what they are saying and doing. One moment, they are trashing Obama - saying that he is not Commander-in-Chief material and the next minute, they are touting him as the best of candidates for Vice President.
The real question is - are the American people as incredibly stupid as Hill and Bill seem to think? One minute, Hill is stating publicly that she ( and John McCain, of all people) are qualified to be President while Obama is not and, the next minute, she is saying that Obama would be a great choice for VP ( Remember that the VP might have to be President at any time.) as long as Hill is on top of the ticket. It just may be that we the people reakly are as stupid as Hill and Bill think we are.
The Clinton's are perfect examples of what is wrong with politics in our country. It is abundantly clear. The real question is whether or not the American people want real cahnge or whether they want more of the same. We shall see.
it was because she had been so close to the white house before that hillary voted for the authorization. she did not then see what all of us see now: an incompetent, aggressive, lying figurehead for cheney's policies who would twist permission for inspections into a permanent authorization to use military force anywhere.
Yes, Clintons are masters at playing The Game. The problem is, The Game is not working for millions of ordinary people and it has not been working for quite some time. As Hillary stated, now the FUN began. Well, for the rest of us outside the beltway the Washington fun and game playing is a cause of everyday struggle. Tell it to seniors, students, single parents, people out of work, sick people with lousy health insurance.
Jane, you are absolutely right. The Clintons are a cover for the Republican Party, and let me say this, not all republicans are as bad as Clintons. There are many republicans who are decent, and who have values disagree with Clintons on NAFTA, Welfare Reform and more….
It is Women’s history month, a time to reflect on the political events that transformed us to think women’s leadership is a shift to our understanding of power. I’m dismayed with Hillary Clinton’s political spectrum because it doesn’t resemble all the values women fought for, and I’m totally convinced that a sleaze politician can not bring changes that are needed for American life.
I agree with your comment that “Bill Clinton made, that if Hillary became the nominee, the presidential campaign would be exceptionally ‘polite’. We now see that he wasn't joking. Both Clintons are in favor of the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain it.” It reminds when Hillary said that John McCain has more experience than Obama, and it suggests that her values are more intertwine with McCain’s than with Obama’s.
Bill Clinton’s “…exceptionally polite campaign” is disturbing – he undermines democrats’ intelligence. He is trying to assure to the republicans that every thing will be same if Hillary gets elected.
March is a month for all of us to think about what kind of leadership brings the best of us. It is very important month for women and for humanity. Sadly, I don’t see a sign for Hillary Clintons to bring any change that we deserve – Peace!
If you think Hillary has not always represented change please explain to me why the Republicans have been out to take her down for years? If you have put blinders on when it comes to the misogyny in this campaign then it is you who supports the status quo.
Jane, you can't get past the knee-jerkers. Hillary is the one and you damn well better watch out or her minions will tar and feather you. Your dream interview with Hillary was so funny and so sad. The woman is a meglamaniac. She sees herself in messianic terms. Once she gets into office, I doubt she gets one week into her term before she gets into a row with congress. She has no doubts about what she wants to do, and everyone else can step aside. I don't see Obama as much, but with McCain, Hillary, and him there ain't much else to do.
Spot on Jane
If the bullying, fear-mongering career/dyn
I wonder if Hillary realizes how transparent she is.
Hillary is a tyrant and a smart ass. Not so smart though.
I can see why it took her a few tries to pass the bar exams
I wonder who is the most transparent.
Has Senator Clinton ever did anything to you? Have you ever set down and talked to her or had anything personal to do with her?
What is your education level? What have you done to help others? Jealously should be kept at home.
Where did you get your information about how many times it took her to pass the bar exam? What was she doing except helping to get help for children.
What have you done to contribute to the American way of life?
Brilliant and right on. And with the NYT article this morning stating that Govs Rendell and Corzine ready to buy the Florida re-vote, I fear that we are no longer living in a Democracy. The shredding of the Constitution will no doubt continue.
Very well said, Jane. No matter how hard we try, there are still the clueless among us. Those clueless live in a superficial world and never, ever look below the surface of a statement or video to find the real truth. Keep up the good fight.
Jane: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! This is exactly what my observant friends have been saying, most of them people who supported the Clintons when they were in power.
The sad thing is that if the Clintons succeed with their campaign of lies, distortions, and appeals to the terminally lazy and the terminally stupid --as with Bush-- we are all doomed. The difference is that when Hillary fails, there will be no functional Democratic Party to pick up the pieces. The Clintons' efforts to marginalize Howard Dean and the DNC will have wiped the progressives off the Democratic map, and the party, led now by the Clintons' DLC, will have become Republican-lite (and not all THAT lite either....
It is getting so that one is afraid to pay attention to what the Clintons are up to, partly because it makes one feel quite the exploited fool for having supported them in the past and partly because if the voting public falls for their crapola, there is not a prayer of holding on to the dream of an American democracy. Our politics will degenerate even further into a cesspool of winner takes all ( winner being the one with the most power to spin and to frighten and, of course, the most support from corrupt corporations) .
The saddest aspect of our Federal Government today is that the entire GOP, much of the Democratic Congress, many judges and the entire Executive Branch no longer support our Constitution. Hillary and McCain would continue the shredding of the priceless gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Obama is our best hope to reverse the fascism that Bush/Cheney have unleashed upon our country. This Democracy's ideals and economy are in VERY deep trouble.
Ms.Smiley,
Your article is pecisely what I have observed.
These two quotes from your excellent article summarize who Hillary is:
"More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience".
"....the more Hillary Clinton is pressed, the more she reveals her true self. The fact that this self is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other varieties of public relations is worse. In fact, it is not only worse, it is Bushian.."
I am desperately hoping Hillary doesn't get anywhere near the Red Phone. Ever.
www.RolaPh
your attacks on hillary clinton cause me to circle the wagons, so if what you want is to get me to think, you will present a nonaggressive thinking piece pointing out where hillary clinton is no good for the economy, children, women, gays, social security, blue collar voters, and human beings in general. all of you attack hounds have failed to convince me that she is anything but a hate object for you.
GeorgeI failed to take out Hussein. GeorgeII had the taking out of Hussein as priority #1. Bill pulled out of Somalia. Hillary will choose Somalia as her 1st war of choice. She will also reinstate the draft and Monica will be the first female ever drafted(Monica has years of White House experience, also).
Odd post Jane considering that Clinton is not the one running on the big post-partisan reach-acro
Exactly, LewisR.
Hillary does not have to reach across the aisle.
She is already there
Hillary Clinton is no Democrat as far as I'm concerned. When you praise a warmonger like John McCain, say that he's more qualified than your Democratic opponent, and expect to seat delegates that your own party's chairman declared excluded, you've made it clear that you don't give a damn about your party, but only yourself. You can tell a lot about the kind of President a candidate will be by the way they campaign and Hillary Clinton has shown that she would be paranoid, secretive, duplicitous, surround herself with incompetents who fight one another, reward loyalty over competence, not handle criticism well, and be willing to betray her own party if it prevented her from staying in power. That's a perfect description of George Bush. The only difference I see between McCain and Clinton is one actually has experience, the other just claims to have it.
You can also verify this with her experience as First Lady. Even then she was extremely well known for rewarding loyalty over merit.
The biggest untold stories of this season is the level and degree of PSYCHOTIC PROJECTS upon
these 2 people, WHO HAVE WORKED HARDER THAN ANYONE IN THE MODERN AGAE ON BEHALF OF AMERICANS, WHILE RUNNING THE MOST HONEST CAMPAIGN.
I say this in part because for 7 years I have had C -SPAN on 20 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The question remains WHY!
Especially because when Bill began to run he was visited by a Republican operative who warned him not to. Said that they have looked at the Democratic field and concluded that they will easily be able to beat the others by claiming that they are "too liberal." But not with Bill, so if he runs they will destroy him.
What followed was a barrage of eroneous attacks from Whitewater to Travel gate, FBI gate, that cause their close friend to coin the term "Blood Sport".
Despite all of this they continued to work so hard, got a great deal done, and left office with a 65% approval rating.
I thought it was a fabulous ad that made the point she has been trying to make since the begining.
Unfortunately since Obama has a thin level of national achievement he has run a Republican campaign of devision.
He is a bike rider. Praising == Bowing down to the American Fascist Republican Party while kicking Drmocrats in the head, and hoping to disnfranchise the almost 900,000 Floridians who voted for Senator Clinton.
His campaign has been using Republican PR Operative's book: 'It's not what you say but what people hear"
Only problem for Hillary has been that she is not phony enough.
MinerSam, Your comments cannot be taken seriously because you omitted Hillary's support for both GW Bush and John McCain in the past weeks, "Bowing down to the American Fascist Republican Party while kicking Drmocrats in the head" as you said.
Hillary is a Republican.
What Kind of Alternative Universe is Miner Sam living in. He claims Obama is bowing down to the Republican party???? WTF???. It is Clinton who is endorsing McCain (Clinton=M
Obama kicking other Democrats in the head? Tell that to Bill Foster and Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill. All of them are Democrats Obama helped to win important elections since 2006. The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him.
You are right to point out that the Clintons contributed in the 1990s and that the had todeal with a lot of crap along the way. But the problem is that they seem to have decided to take out their frustrations on one of our own.
Here is the problem.
Hillary Clinton is fucking up this entire primary cycle. Because she spends all her time making specious and incendiary charges against Obama, people feel they have to spend most of their time defending him. What many of us would prefer to do is to hold both candidates feet to the fire and force them to make talk about HOW they will advance a progressive agenda.
All of a sudden, Hillary Clinton had decided this election is about the Commander-in-Chief Threshold. When do we, the voters get a chance to weigh in on what that threshold ought to entail? When does she stop talking and LISTEN to us? Hillary Clinton acts like she thinks she is my mother. She tells me what she is going to do for my own good. But I already have a mother. What I need is a President.
And Clinton is undoing all the good will she accumulated during her years as First Lady. She has cynically throw Barack Obama under the bus. He is more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than she is. In every way, but most especially in terms of temperament. She is a sociopath. Let's be honest and say the word. She should never be allowed anywhere near a phone at 3:00 am. We are reacting to what SHE is saying and doing. She, and she alone, is making people stop supporting her. I know people in Texas who voted for Hillary early with an absentee ballot, who went out again to caucus so that they could switch their support to Barack. That is what she is doing.
I was unaware that Webb has come out for anyone and Claire McCaskill might find it a little hard to get all the women who worked to elect her to help her out the next time around. She may have to depend on the eighteen year olds whose advise she is taking. LOL Claire!
Your're right. Her 3% majority vote in Texas was from Rush Limbaugh Republicans who did not have a nerve and conviction to come to caucus for her openly later on. Isn't it interesting how press stop reporting that Obama won the TX caucuses and once all is said and done he will have more delegates from TX than Clinton? How's that for her BIG Win?
Mrs. Clinton usesnational security and fitness for commander-in-chief to serve 2 purposes. One: she knows that Republicans (and their allies) still hold an edge (in the public's mind) of protecting us from terrorists and she want to show that she's tough enough to play in that ballpark. Two: talking about who is fit to be commander-in-chief gives white people who won't vote for a black candidate the fig leaf to cover theirbigotry. Now they can say they won't vote for Obama because he won't be a strong commander-in-chief rather than because he's black. Straight out of the Rove playbook: she gets to play the race card by innuendo rahter than being forthright, unlike Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania who is upfront about white people not wanting to vote for a black candidate.
I WAS around when a lot of what is being said about the WAR, NAFTA, etc. I remember well.
I too became concerned, so I did my homework and paid careful attention to the facts.
First, what you don't know is that although NAFTA has it's problems, it did some good too.
What we did not expect is, that our own country...
I think I look at all the things on here and say "it's funny how little people remember, and how little people do real research".
Here is some very good information about the war vote. I dare you to read it. It is factual. So, be prepared.
Sen Clinton's Vote on Iraq-
Sen Bill Nelson (FL) was one of the 77 senators who voted for Iraq War Resolution.
Nelson described for the Congressional Record ( pp S311-S312 dated January 28,2004) the days leading up to the 10/02 U.S. Senate vote on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of US Armed Forces Against Iraq. He explains how the House and Senate members were not told the truth about weapons of mass destruction, about troop levels, about the cost of the war, about sectarian violence.
In addition, I had read somewhere that just before the vote, about 75 senators were told in closed session specific details regarding how Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The discussions which take place in a closed session are subject to confidentiality rules and are similar to an executive session, which itself can be open or closed.
All business is considered secret, including Senatorial remarks, votes, and other parliamentary proceedings. The Senate can vote during the session or later to lift the secrecy, at which time the vote and the session proceedings will be published in the Congressional Record.
If a Senator discloses any of the proceedings except as directed by the Senate, the body can vote for expulsion of the member; any officer that does the same would be subject to dismissal. In extreme cases, the Senate could vote the member or official in contempt of Congress.
I don"t know who called the motion and who seconded it so that this can take place.
I don"t know if Sen Clinton was present. I don"t know what was discussed.
Then, on February 2003, Colin Powell presented further evidence in his Iraqi WMD program presentation to the UN Security Council that UAVs were ready to be launched against the U.S.
Sen. Clinton (along with 76 senators and 296 House members) voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized Pres. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution (26 House & Senate members voted no and 3 abstained-. Force was to be used only after after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. Attempts were made to pass 5 amendments to the Bill. House (spratt, Lee) Senate (Byrd, Levin, durbin). All five failed..
Clinton did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal). In addition, Hans Blix the chief United Nations weapons inspector, said that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. According to Joe Wilson, Sen. Clinton"s approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. .. According to Wilson, the betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats. After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain. She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but said it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq. Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.[223
http://www
http://www
(Congressional Record 1/28/04)
Last week in Texas Hillary said GW Bush brought Iraqis freedom.
Yeah, with $3 trillion of US taxpayer money.
Actually she called it, "the gift of freedom." This from someone who claims she is against the war/occupation.
She also claims she was not voting for war at all but for more U.N. inspectors in Iraq. Never mind the fact that there was no such requirement in the resolution, and when Carl Levin introduced an amendment to add it, Hillary voted against it.
Freedom to die. 10X more Iraqis have died in this War than Americans in Viet Nam, and their population is 1/10 of ours. Imagine if the US had lost 5 million in Viet Nam. And imagine if another 30 million of us had become refugees.
Some freedom.
thank you for this. Well said.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
